Evidence Cases

Marturillas vs.
People, 487 SCRA 273(2006)]

G.R. No. 163217. April 18, 2006.*
CELESTINO MARTURILLAS, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Appeals; Evidence; Basic is the rule that the Supreme Court accords great weight
and a high degree of respect to the factual findings of the trial court, especially
when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.Basic is the rule that this Court accords
great weight and a high degree of respect to factual findings of the trial court,
especially when affirmed by the CA, as in the present case. Here, the RTC was
unequivocally upheld by the CA, which was clothed with the power to review
whether the trial courts conclusions were in accord with the facts and the relevant
laws. Indeed, the findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed on appeal, unless
it has overlooked or misinterpreted some facts or circumstances of weight and
substance. Although there are recognized exceptions to the conclusiveness of the
findings of fact of the trial and the appellate courts, petitioner has not convinced
this Court of the existence of any.
Same; Same; Witnesses; On questions of the credibility of witnesses and the
veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the highest degree
of respect.Settled is the rule that on questions of the credibility of witnesses and
the veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the highest
degree of respect. It was the trial court that had the opportunity to observe the
manner in which the witnesses had testified; as well as their furtive glances,
calmness, sighs, and scant or full realization of their oaths. It had the better
opportunity to observe them firsthand; and to note their demeanor, conduct and
attitude under grueling examination.
Evidence; Witnesses; The illumination produced by a kerosene lamp, a flashlight, a
wick lamp, moonlight, or starlight are considered sufficient to allow identification of
persons; A full moon and the light coming from two fluorescent lamps are sufficient
to illuminate a place where a person might be.This Court has consistently held
thatgiven the proper conditionsthe illumination produced by a kerosene lamp, a
flashlight, a wick lamp, moonlight, or starlight is
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
274
274
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Marturillas vs. People
considered sufficient to allow the identification of persons. In this case, the full
moon and the light coming from two fluorescent lamps of a nearby store were
sufficient to illumine the place where petitioner was; and to enable the eyewitness
to identify him as the person who was present at the crime scene. Settled is the rule
that when conditions of visibility are favorable and the witnesses do not appear to
be biased, their assertion as to the identity of the malefactor should normally be
accepted.
Same; Same; Those related to the victim of a crime have a natural tendency to
remember the faces of those involved in it.But even where the circumstances
were less favorable, the familiarity of Ernita with the face of petitioner considerably
reduced any error in her identification of him. Since the circumstances in this case
were reasonably sufficient for the identification of persons, this fact of her
familiarity with him erases any doubt that she could have erred in identifying him.
Those related to the victim of a crime have a natural tendency to remember the
faces of those involved in it. These relatives, more than anybody else, would be
concerned with seeking justice for the victim and bringing the malefactor before the
law.
Same; Same; Where there is nothing to indicate that witnesses were actuated by
improper motives on the witness stand, their positive declarations made under
solemn oath deserve full faith and credence.Neither was there any indication that
Ernita was impelled by ill motives in positively identifying petitioner. The CA was
correct in observing that it would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in
vindicating the crime to accuse somebody else other than the real culprit. For her to
do so is to let the guilty go free. Where there is nothing to indicate that witnesses
were actuated by improper motives on the witness stand, their positive declarations
made under solemn oath deserve full faith and credence.
Same; Same; Affidavits; Basic is the rule that, taken ex parte, affidavits are
considered incomplete and often inaccuratethey are products of sometimes
partial suggestions and at other times of want of suggestions and inquiries, without
the aid of which witnesses may be unable to recall the connected circumstances
necessary for accurate recollection.To be sure, ex parte affidavits are usually
incomplete, as these are frequently prepared by administering officers and cast in
their language and understanding of what affiants have said. Almost always, the
latter would simply sign the documents after
275
VOL. 487, APRIL 18, 2006

275
being read to them. Basic is the rule that, taken ex parte, affidavits are considered
incomplete and often inaccurate. They are products sometimes of partial
suggestions and at other times of want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid
of which witnesses may be unable to recall the connected circumstances necessary
for accurate recollection.
Same; Same; Homicide; Dying Declaration; Requisites; Statements identifying the
assailant, if uttered by a victim on verge of death, are entitled to the highest degree
of credence and respect; The dying declaration is given credence, on the premise
that no one who knows of ones impending death will make careless and false
accusation; To be admissible, dying must (1) refer to the cause and circumstances
surrounding the declarants death, (2) be made under consciousness of an
impending death, (3) be made freely and voluntarily without coercion or
suggestions of improper influence, (4) be offered in a criminal case, in which the
death of the declarant is the subject inquiry, and (5) have been made by a declarant
competent to testify as witness, had that person been called to testify.Generally,
witnesses can testify only to those facts derived from their own perception. A
recognized exception, though, is a report in open court of a dying persons
declaration made under the consciousness of an impending death that is the
subject of inquiry in the case. Statements identifying the assailant, if uttered by a
victim on the verge of death, are entitled to the highest degree of credence and
respect. Persons aware of an impending death have been known to be genuinely
truthful in their words and extremely scrupulous in their accusations. The dying
declaration is given credence, on the premise that no one who knows of ones
impending death will make a careless and false accusation. Hence, not infrequently,
pronouncements of guilt have been allowed to rest solely on the dying declaration
of the deceased victim. To be admissible, a dying declaration must 1) refer to the
cause and circumstances surrounding the declarants death; 2) be made under the
consciousness of an impending death; 3) be made freely and voluntarily without
coercion or suggestions of improper influence; 4) be offered in a criminal case, in
which the death of the declarant is the subject of inquiry; and 5) have been made
by a declarant competent to testify as a witness, had that person been called upon
to testify.
276
276

Same; Same; Same; Same; Even if the declarant did not make an explicit statement
of the realization of impending death, the degree and seriousness of the wounds
and the fact that death occurred shortly afterwards may be considered as sufficient
evidence that the declaration was made by the victim with full consciousness of
being in a dying condition.True, he made no express statement showing that he
was conscious of his impending death. The law, however, does not require the
declarant to state explicitly a perception of the inevitability of death. The perception
may be established from surrounding circumstances, such as the nature of the
declarants injury and conduct that would justify a conclusion that there was a
consciousness of impending death. Even if the declarant did not make an explicit
statement of that realization, the degree and seriousness of the words and the fact
that death occurred shortly afterwards may be considered as sufficient evidence
that the declaration was made by the victim with full consciousness of being in a
dying condition.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Res Gestae; The fact that the victims statement
constituted a dying declaration does not preclude it from being admitted as part of
the res gestae, if the elements of both are present.The fact that the victims
statement constituted a dying declaration does not preclude it from being admitted
as part of the res gestae, if the elements of both are present. Section 42 of Rule 130
of the Rules of Court provides: Part of the res gestae.Statements made by a
person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in
evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal
act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part
of the res gestae.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Res gestae refers to
statements made by the participants or the victims of, or the spectators to, a crime
immediately before, during, or after its commission.Res gestae refers to
statements made by the participants or the victims of, or the spectators to, a crime
immediately before, during, or after its commission. These statements are a
spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion,
without any opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false statement. An
important consideration is whether there intervened, between the occurrence and
the statement, any circumstance
277
VOL. 487, APRIL 18, 2006
277
calculated to divert the mind and thus restore the mental balance of the declarant;
and afford an opportunity for deliberation. A declaration is deemed part of the res
gestae and admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule, when the
following requisites concur: 1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling
occurrence; 2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive
or devise; and 3) the statements concerned the occurrence in question and its
immediately attending circumstances.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Apart from the victims statement, which is a part
of the res gestae, that of the witness-spouseCaptain, why did you shoot my
husband?may be considered to be in the same category.Aside from the victims
statement, which is part of the res gestae, that of ErnitaKapitan, ngano nimo
gipatay ang akong bana? (Captain, why did you shoot my husband?)may be
considered to be in the same category. Her statement was about the same startling
occurrence; it was uttered spontaneously, right after the shooting, while she had no
opportunity to concoct a story against petitioner; and it related to the circumstances
of the shooting.
Same; Same; Where an eyewitness saw the accused with a gun seconds after the
gunshots and the victims fall, the reasonable conclusion is that the accused had
killed the victim.This Court has consistently held that, where an eyewitness saw
the accused with a gun seconds after the gunshot and the victims fall, the
reasonable conclusion is that the accused had killed the victim. Further establishing
petitioners guilt was the definitive statement of the victim that he had been shot by
the barangay captain.
Criminal Law; Presumption of Innocence; Conviction in a criminal case does not
require a degree of proof that, excluding the possibility of error, produces absolute
certainty.Petitioners guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt. To be sure,
conviction in a criminal case does not require a degree of proof that, excluding the
possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required or
that degree of proof that produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; Circumstantial, vis--vis direct evidence, is not
necessarily weaker.That some pieces of the above-mentioned evidence are
circumstantial does not diminish the
278
278

fact that they are of a nature that would lead the mind intuitively, or by a conscious
process of reasoning, toward the conviction of petitioner. Circumstantial, vis--vis
direct, evidence is not necessarily weaker. Moreover, the circumstantial evidence
described above satisfies the requirements of the Rules of Court, which we quote:
SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.Circumstantial evidence is
sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts
from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Same; Paraffin Tests; Time and time again, the Supreme Court has held that a
negative paraffin test result is not a conclusive proof that a person has not fired a
gun.Petitioner takes issue with the negative results of the paraffin test done on
him. While they were negative, that fact alone did not ipso facto prove that he was
innocent. Time and time again, this Court has held that a negative paraffin test
result is not a conclusive proof that a person has not fired a gun. In other words, it is
possible to fire a gun and yet be negative for nitrates, as when culprits wear gloves,
wash their hands afterwards, or are bathed in perspiration. Besides, the prosecution
was able to establish the events during the shooting, including the presence of
petitioner at the scene of the crime. Hence, all other matters, such as the negative
paraffin test result, are of lesser probative value.
Same; Corpus Delicti; Words and Phrases; Corpus delicti is the fact of the
commission of the crime that may be proved by the testimony of eyewitnesses; In
its legal sense, corpus delicti does not necessarily refer to the body of the person
murdered, to the firearms in the crime of homicide with the use of unlicensed
firearms, to the ransom money in the crime of kidnapping for ransom, or to the
seized contraband cigarettes.Petitioner then argues that the prosecution
miserably failed to establish the type of gun used in the shooting. Suffice it to say
that this contention hardly dents the latters case. As correctly found by the
appellate court, the prosecution was able to give sufficient proof of the corpus
delictithe fact that a crime had actually been committed. Ruled this Court in
another case: [Corpus delicti] is the fact of the commission of the crime that may
be proved by the testimony of eyewitnesses. In its legal sense, corpus delicti does
not necessarily refer to the body of the person murdered, to the firearms in the
crime of homicide with the use of unlicensed firearms, to the ransom money in the
crime of kidnapping for ransom, or x x x to the seized contraband cigarettes.
Criminal Law; Civil Indemnity; When death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of
the deceased are entitled to P50,000 as indemnity for the death, without need of
any evidence or proof of damages.We uphold the award of P50,000 indemnity ex
delicto to the heirs of the victim. When death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs
of the deceased are entitled to this amount as indemnity for the death, without
need of any evidence or proof of damages. As to actual damages, we note that the
prosecution was able to establish sufficiently only P22,200 for funeral and burial
costs. The rest of the expenses, although presented, were not duly receipted. We
cannot simply accept them as credible evidence. This Court has already ruled,
though, that when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to
less than P25,000, the award of P25,000 for temperate damages is justified, in lieu
of the actual damages of a lesser amount. In effect, the award granted by the lower
court is upheld.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Israelito P. Torreon for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for the People.
PANGANIBAN, C.J.:
Amanquiton vs. People, 596 SCRA 366(2009)

G.R. No. 186080.August 14, 2009.*
JULIUS AMANQUITON, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Criminal Law; Presumption of Innocence; An accused is entitled to an acquittal
unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubtit is the primordial duty of the
prosecution to present its side with clarity and persuasion, so that conviction
becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion, with moral certainty.The
Constitution itself provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. An accused is entitled to an
acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. It is the primordial duty
of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and persuasion, so that conviction
becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion, with moral certainty. The
necessity for proof beyond reasonable doubt was discussed in People v. Berroya
(283 SCRA 111 [1997]): [Proof beyond reasonable doubt] lies in the fact that in a
criminal prosecution, the State is arrayed against the subject; it enters the contest
with a prior inculpatory finding in its hands; with unlimited means of command; with
counsel usually of authority and capacity, who are regarded as public officers, as
therefore as speaking semi-judicially, and with an attitude of tranquil majesty often
in striking contrast to that of defendant engaged in a perturbed and distracting
struggle for liberty if not for life. These inequalities of position, the law strives to
meet by the rule that there is to be no conviction where there is reasonable doubt of
guilt. However, proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only moral certainty or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
Same; Same; Pro Reo Principle; Equipoise Rule; Words and Phrases; Where the
evidence on an issue of fact is in question or there is doubt on which side the
evidence weighs, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused; If
inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one
consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt,
then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and will not justify a
conviction.While we ordinarily do not interfere with the findings of the lower
courts on the trustworthiness of witnesses, when there appear in the records facts
and circumstances of real weight which might have been overlooked or
misapprehended, this Court cannot shirk from its duty to sift fact from fiction. We
apply the pro reo principle and the equipoise rule in this case. Where the evidence
on an issue of fact is in question or there is doubt on which side the evidence
weighs, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. If inculpatory facts
and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one consistent with the
innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence
does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and will not justify a conviction.
Same; Same; Child Abuse Law (Republic Act No. 7610); Republic Act No. 7610
supplies the inadequacies of existing laws treating crimes committed against
children, namely, the Revised Penal Code and Presidential Decree No. 603 or the
Child and Youth Welfare Code; While Republic Act No. 7610 is a statute that provides
for a mechanism for strong deterrence against the commission of child abuse and
exploitation, this noble statute should not be used as a sharp sword, ready to be
brandished against an accused even if there is a patent lack of proof to convict him
of the crimethe right of an accused to liberty is as important as a minors right not
to be subjected to any form of abuse.Time and again, we have held that: Republic
Act No. 7610 is a measure geared towards the implementation of a national
comprehensive program for the survival of the most vulnerable members of the
population, the Filipino children, in keeping with the Constitutional mandate under
Article XV, Section 3, paragraph 2, that The State shall defend the right of the
children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection
from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions
prejudicial to their development. This piece of legislation supplies the inadequacies
of existing laws treating crimes committed against children, namely, the Revised
Penal Code and Presidential Decree No. 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Code. As
a statute that provides for a mechanism for strong deterrence against the
commission of child abuse and exploitation, the law has stiffer penalties for their
commission, and a means by which child traffickers could easily be prosecuted and
penalized. Also, the definition of child abuse is expanded to encompass not only
those specific acts of child abuse under existing laws but includes also other acts of
neglect, abuse, cruelty or exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to the childs
development. However, this noble statute should not be used as a sharp sword,
ready to be brandished against an accused even if there is a patent lack of proof to
convict him of the crime. The right of an accused to liberty is as important as a
minors right not to be subjected to any form of abuse. Both are enshrined in the
Constitution. One need not be sacrificed for the other.
Same; Same; Same; While unfortunately, incidents of maltreatment of children
abound amidst social ills, care has to be likewise taken that wayward youths should
not be cuddled by a misapplication of the lawsociety, through its laws, should
correct the deviant conduct of the youth rather than take the cudgels for them.
There is no dearth of law, rules and regulations protecting a child from any and all
forms of abuse. While unfortunately, incidents of maltreatment of children abound
amidst social ills, care has to be likewise taken that wayward youths should not be
cuddled by a misapplication of the law. Society, through its laws, should correct the
deviant conduct of the youth rather than take the cudgels for them. Lest we regress
to a culture of juvenile delinquency and errant behavior, laws for the protection of
children against abuse should be applied only and strictly to actual abusers. The
objective of this seemingly catch-all provision on abuses against children will be
best achieved if parameters are set in the law itself, if only to prevent baseless
accusations against innocent individuals. Perhaps the time has come for Congress
to review this matter and institute the safeguards necessary for the attainment of
its laudable ends.
Appeals.
Fernandez & Associates Law Firm for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondent.
CORONA,J.:
Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Tiu, 657 SCRA 86(2011)

G.R. Nos. 173090-91.September 7, 2011.*
UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES RODOLFO T. TIU AND
VICTORIA N. TIU, respondents.
Contracts; In the determination of the nullity of a contract based on the lack of
consideration, the debtor has the burden to prove the same.It is important to note
at this point that in the determination of the nullity of a contract based on the lack
of consideration, the debtor has the burden to prove the same. Article 1354 of the
Civil Code provides that [a]though the cause is not stated in the contract, it is
presumed that it exists and is lawful, unless the debtor proves the contrary.
Evidence; A formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their
findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by
the parties at the trial.We have held that a formal offer is necessary because
judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment only and
strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. It has several functions:
(1) to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for which the
proponent is presenting the evidence; (2) to allow opposing parties to examine the
evidence and object to its admissibility; and (3) to facilitate review by the appellate
court, which will not be required to review documents not previously scrutinized by
the trial court.
Good Faith; Bad Faith; It is axiomatic that good faith is always presumed unless
convincing evidence to the contrary is adduced. It is incumbent upon the party
alleging bad faith to sufficiently prove such allegation.It is axiomatic that good
faith is always presumed unless convincing evidence to the contrary is adduced. It
is incumbent upon the party alleging bad faith to sufficiently prove such allegation.
Absent enough proof thereof, the presumption of good faith prevails. The alleged
insidious design of many banks to betray their clients during the Asian financial
crisis is certainly not of public knowledge.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the joint decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals.
Fe, Tengco, Becina-Macalino & Associates for petitioner.
Zosa & Quijano Law Offices for respondents.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,J.:
People vs. Wagas, 705 SCRA 17(2013)]

G.R. No. 157943.September 4, 2013.*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GILBERT REYES WAGAS, accusedappellant.
Criminal Law; Estafa; Estafa by Postdating Checks; In order to constitute estafa
under this statutory provision, the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment
of an obligation must be the efficient cause of the defraudation; In other words, the
Prosecution must show that the person to whom the check was delivered would not
have parted with his money or property were it not for the issuance of the check by
the offender.In order to constitute estafa under this statutory provision, the act of
postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient
cause of the defraudation. This means that the offender must be able to obtain
money or property from the offended party by reason of the issuance of the check,
whether dated or postdated. In other words, the Prosecution must show that the
person to whom the check was delivered would not have parted with his money or
property were it not for the issuance of the check by the offender.
Same; Same; Same; Elements of.The essential elements of the crime charged are
that: (a) a check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at
the time the check is issued; (b) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check;
and (c) damage to the payee thereof. It is the criminal fraud or deceit in the
issuance of a check that is punishable, not the non-payment of a debt. Prima facie
evidence of deceit exists by law upon proof that the drawer of the check failed to
deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three days from receipt of
the notice of dishonor.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt; In every criminal
prosecution, however, the identity of the offender, like the crime itself, must be
established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.In every criminal prosecution, the
identity of the offender, like the crime itself, must be established by proof beyond
reasonable doubt. In that regard, the Prosecution did not establish beyond
reasonable doubt that it was Wagas who had defrauded Ligaray by issuing the
check.
Mercantile Law; Negotiable Instruments Law; Checks; Under the Negotiable
Instruments Law, a check payable to cash is payable to the bearer and could be
negotiated by mere delivery without the need of an indorsement.The check
delivered to Ligaray was made payable to cash. Under the Negotiable Instruments
Law, this type of check was payable to the bearer and could be negotiated by mere
delivery without the need of an indorsement. This rendered it highly probable that
Wagas had issued the check not to Ligaray, but to somebody else like Caada, his
brother-in-law, who then negotiated it to Ligaray. Relevantly, Ligaray confirmed that
he did not himself see or meet Wagas at the time of the transaction and thereafter,
and expressly stated that the person who signed for and received the stocks of rice
was Caada.
Criminal Law; Estafa; Estafa by Postdating Checks; What the law punishes is the
fraud or deceit, not the mere issuance of the worthless check.It bears stressing
that the accused, to be guilty of estafa as charged, must have used the check in
order to defraud the complainant. What the law punishes is the fraud or deceit, not
the mere issuance of the worthless check. Wagas could not be held guilty of estafa
simply because he had issued the check used to defraud Ligaray. The proof of guilt
must still clearly show that it had been Wagas as the drawer who had defrauded
Ligaray by means of the check.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Under the law of evidence, the court shall consider
evidence solely for the purpose for which it is offered, not for any other purpose.
The letter of Wagas did not competently establish that he was the person who had
conversed with Ligaray by telephone to place the order for the rice. The letter was
admitted exclusively as the States rebuttal evidence to controvert or impeach the
denial of Wagas of entering into any transaction with Ligaray on the rice; hence, it
could be considered and appreciated only for that purpose. Under the law of
evidence, the court shall consider evidence solely for the purpose for which it is
offered, not for any other purpose. Fairness to the adverse party demands such
exclusivity. Moreover, the high plausibility of the explanation of Wagas that he had
signed the letter only because his sister and her husband had pleaded with him to
do so could not be taken for granted.
Same; Same; Burden of Proof; The State has the burden of proof to show: (1) the
correct identification of the author of a crime, and (2) the actuality of the
commission of the offense with the participation of the accused.It is a
fundamental rule in criminal procedure that the State carries the onus probandi in
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, as a consequence
of the tenet ei incumbit probation, qui dicit, non qui negat, which means that he
who asserts, not he who denies, must prove, and as a means of respecting the
presumption of innocence in favor of the man or woman on the dock for a crime.
Accordingly, the State has the burden of proof to show: (1) the correct identification
of the author of a crime, and (2) the actuality of the commission of the offense with
the participation of the accused. All these facts must be proved by the State beyond
reasonable doubt on the strength of its evidence and without solace from the
weakness of the defense. That the defense the accused puts up may be weak is
inconsequential if, in the first place, the State has failed to discharge the onus of his
identity and culpability. The presumption of innocence dictates that it is for the
Prosecution to demonstrate the guilt and not for the accused to establish innocence.
Indeed, the accused, being presumed innocent, carries no burden of proof on his or
her shoulders. For this reason, the first duty of the Prosecution is not to prove the
crime but to prove the identity of the criminal. For even if the commission of the
crime can be established, without competent proof of the identity of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt, there can be no conviction.
Criminal Law; Estafa; Civil Liability; An accused, though acquitted of estafa, may still
be held civilly liable where the preponderance of the established facts so warrants.
An accused, though acquitted of estafa, may still be held civilly liable where the
preponderance of the established facts so warrants. Wagas as the admitted drawer
of the check was legally liable to pay the amount of it to Ligaray, a holder in due
course. Consequently, we pronounce and hold him fully liable to pay the amount of
the dishonored check, plus legal interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this
decision.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
George Bragat for accused-appellant.
BERSAMIN,J.:
G.R. No. 209386.December 8, 2014.*
MEL CARPIZO CANDELARIA, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

respondent.
Criminal Law; Qualified Theft; Elements of.The elements of Qualified Theft,
punishable under Article 310 in relation to Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), as amended, are: (a) the taking of personal property; (b) the said property
belongs to another; (c) the said taking be done with intent to gain; (d) it be done
without the owners consent; (e) it be accomplished without the use of violence or
intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; and (f) it be done under any
of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the RPC, i.e., with grave abuse of
confidence.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; Circumstantial evidence is
sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts
from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is more than one
circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence suffices to convict an accused
only if the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one
fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all
others, as the guilty person; the circumstances proved must be consistent with each
other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and, at the same
time, inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilt. Corollary thereto, a
conviction based on circumstantial evidence must exclude each and every
hypothesis consistent with innocence.
Same; Same; Flight; While it is true that flight per se is not synonymous with guilt,
unexplained flight nonetheless evinces guilt or betrays the existence of a guilty
conscience, especially when taken together with all the other circumstantial
evidence attendant in this case.Threading these circumstances together, the
Court perceives a congruent picture that the crime of Qualified Theft had been
committed and that Candelaria had perpetrated the same. To be sure, this
determination is not sullied by the fact that Candelarias companion, Romano, had
died before he could testify as to the truth of his allegation that the former had
threatened him with a balisong on August 23, 2006. It is a gaping hole in the
defense that the diesel fuel was admittedly placed under Candelarias custody and
remains unaccounted for. Candelaria did not proffer any persuasive reason to
explain the loss of said goods and merely banked on a general denial, which, as
case law holds, is an inherently weak defense due to the ease by which it can be
concocted. With these, and, moreover, the tell-tale fact that Candelaria has not
returned or reported back to work at Unioil since the incident, the Court draws no
other reasonable inference other than that which points to his guilt. Verily, while it is
true that flight per se is not synonymous with guilt, unexplained flight nonetheless
evinces guilt or betrays the existence of a guilty conscience, especially when taken
together with all the other circumstantial evidence attendant in this case. Thus, all
things considered, Candelarias conviction for the crime of Qualified Theft stands.
Criminal Law; Qualified Theft; Penalties; The imposable penalty for the crime of
Qualified Theft depends upon the value of the thing stolen.The imposable penalty
for the crime of Qualified Theft depends upon the value of the thing stolen. To prove
the value of the stolen property for purposes of fixing the imposable penalty under
Articles 309 and 310 of the RPC, as amended, the Court explained in People v.
Anabe, 566 SCRA 92 (2008), that the prosecution must present more than a mere
uncorroborated estimate. In the absence of independent and reliable
corroboration of such estimate, the courts may either apply the minimum penalty
under Article 309 or fix the value of the property taken based on the attendant
circumstances of the case. In Merida v. People (Merida), 554 SCRA 366 (2008),
which applied the doctrine enunciated in People v. Dator (Dator), 344 SCRA 222
(2000), the Court deemed it improper to take judicial notice of the selling price of
narra at the time of the commission of its theft, as such evidence would be
unreliable and inconclusive considering the lack of independent and competent
source of such information.
Appeals.
PERLAS-BERNABE,J.: [Candelaria vs. People, 744 SCRA 178(2014)]
G.R. No. 164457.April 11, 2012.*

ANNA LERIMA PATULA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Constitutional Law; Bill of Rights; Right to be Informed; The Bill of Rights guarantees
some rights to every person accused of a crime, among them the right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.The Bill of Rights guarantees
some rights to every person accused of a crime, among them the right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, viz.: Section 14. (1) No person
shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. (2) In all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial,
and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process
to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the
accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.
Same; Same; Same; An accused cannot be convicted of an offense that is not
clearly charged in the complaint or information.The importance of the proper
manner of alleging the nature and cause of the accusation in the information should
never be taken for granted by the State. An accused cannot be convicted of an
offense that is not clearly charged in the complaint or information. To convict him of
an offense other than that charged in the complaint or information would be
violative of the Constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation. Indeed, the accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly
proven, unless the crime is alleged or necessarily included in the information filed
against him.
Criminal Law; Estafa; Elements of Estafa under Article 315, Paragraph 1 (b) of the
Revised Penal Code.The elements of the offense charged were as follows: (a) That
the offender received money, goods or other personal property in trust, or on
commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty
to make delivery of, or to return, the same; (b) That the offender misappropriated or
converted such money, goods or other personal property, or denied his part in its
receipt; (c) That the misappropriation or conversion or denial was to the prejudice of
another; and (d) That the offended party made a demand on the offender for the
delivery or return of such money, goods or other personal property.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Hearsay Evidence Rule; The rule against hearsay
testimony rests mainly on the ground that there was no opportunity to crossexamine the declarant.It is apparent, too, that a person who relates a hearsay is
not obliged to enter into any particular, to answer any question, to solve any
difficulties, to reconcile any contradictions, to explain any obscurities, to remove
any ambiguities; and that she entrenches herself in the simple assertion that she
was told so, and leaves the burden entirely upon the dead or absent author. Thus,
the rule against hearsay testimony rests mainly on the ground that there was no
opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. The testimony may have been given
under oath and before a court of justice, but if it is offered against a party who is
afforded no opportunity to cross-examine the witness, it is hearsay just the same.
Same; Same; Same; If an extrajudicial utterance is offered, not as an assertion to
prove the matter asserted but without reference to the truth of the matter asserted,
the hearsay rule does not apply.The theory of the hearsay rule is that when a
human utterance is offered as evidence of the truth of the fact asserted, the credit
of the assertor becomes the basis of inference, and, therefore, the assertion can be
received as evidence only when made on the witness stand, subject to the test of
cross-examination. However, if an extrajudicial utterance is offered, not as an
assertion to prove the matter asserted but without reference to the truth of the
matter asserted, the hearsay rule does not apply. For example, in a slander case, if
a prosecution witness testifies that he heard the accused say that the complainant
was a thief, this testimony is admissible not to prove that the complainant was
really a thief, but merely to show that the accused uttered those words. This kind of
utterance is hearsay in character but is not legal hearsay. The distinction is,
therefore, between (a) the fact that the statement was made, to which the hearsay
rule does not apply, and (b) the truth of the facts asserted in the statement, to
which the hearsay rule applies.
Same; Same; Right to Cross-Examination; The right to cross-examine the adverse
partys witness, being the only means of testing the credibility of witnesses and
their testimonies, is essential to the administration of justice.Section 36, Rule 130
of the Rules of Court is understandably not the only rule that explains why
testimony that is hearsay should be excluded from consideration. Excluding hearsay
also aims to preserve the right of the opposing party to cross-examine the original
declarant claiming to have a direct knowledge of the transaction or occurrence. If
hearsay is allowed, the right stands to be denied because the declarant is not in
court. It is then to be stressed that the right to cross-examine the adverse partys
witness, being the only means of testing the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies, is essential to the administration of justice.
Same; Same; Public Documents; Private Documents; Section 19, Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court distinguishes between a public document and a private document for
the purpose of their presentation in evidence.Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court distinguishes between a public document and a private document for the
purpose of their presentation in evidence, viz.: Section 19. Classes of documents.
For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or
private. Public documents are: (a) The written official acts, or records of the official
acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers,
whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country; (b) Documents acknowledged
before a notary public except last wills and testaments, and (c) Public records, kept
in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein. All
other writings are private.
Same; Same; Hearsay Evidence Rule; Entries in the Course of Business; Requisites
before Entries in the Course of Business Could be Excepted from the Hearsay Rule.
The terse yet sweeping manner of justifying the application of Section 43 was
unacceptable due to the need to show the concurrence of the several requisites
before entries in the course of business could be excepted from the hearsay rule.
The requisites are as follows: (a) The person who made the entry must be dead or
unable to testify; (b) The entries were made at or near the time of the transactions
to which they refer; (c) The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the
entries; (d) The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the
performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral, or religious; (e) The
entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
Temistocles B. Diez for petitioner.
Manolo Zerna for private respondent.
BERSAMIN,J.: [Patula vs. People, 669 SCRA 135(2012)]
People vs. Endino

G.R. No. 133026. February 20, 2001.*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDWARD ENDINO (at large) and
GERRY GALGARIN alias TOTO, accused. GERRY GALGARIN alias TOTO, accusedappellant.
Criminal Law; Flight; An accuseds attempt at jailbreak reveals a guilty conscience.
Corroborating further accused-appellants guilt, probably with intense
incriminating effect, were his immediate flight after the slaying, and his attempt at
jailbreak revealing a guilty conscience, hence, his persistent effort to evade the
clutches of the law.
Same; Custodial Investigation; Extrajudicial Confessions; Admissions; Mass Media; A
videotaped interview showing the accused unburdening his guilt willingly, openly
and publicly in the presence of newsmen does not form part of custodial
investigation if it was not given to police officers but to media men in an attempt to
elicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public.Apropos the court a quos
admission of accused-appellants videotaped confession, we find such admission
proper. The interview was recorded on video and it showed accused-appellant
unburdening his guilt willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of newsmen.
Such confession does not form part of custodial investigation as it was not given to
police officers but to media men in an attempt to elicit sympathy and forgiveness
from the public. Besides, if he had indeed been forced into confessing, he could
have easily sought succor from the newsmen who, in all likelihood, would have been
symphatetic with him.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Because of the inherent danger in the use of
television as a medium for admitting ones guilt, and the recurrence of this
phenomenon in several cases, it is prudent that trial courts are reminded that
extreme caution must be taken in further admitting confessions.However,
because of the inherent danger in the use of television as a medium for admitting
ones guilt, and the recurrence of this phenomenon in several cases, it is prudent
that trial courts are reminded that extreme caution must be taken in further
admitting similar confessions. For in all probability, the police, with the connivance
of unscrupulous media practitioners, may attempt to legitimize coerced extrajudicial
confessions and place them beyond the exclusionary rule by having an accused
admit an offense on television. Such a situation would be detrimen_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
308
308
People vs. Endino
tal to the guaranteed rights of the accused and thus imperil our criminal justice
system.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; We should never presume that all media
confessions described as voluntary have been freely giventhis type of confession
always remains suspect and therefore should be thoroughly examined and
scrutinized.A word of counsel then to lower courts: we should never presume that
all media confessions described as voluntary have been freely given. This type of
confession always remains suspect and therefore should be thoroughly examined
and scrutinized. Detection of coerced confessions is admittedly a difficult and
arduous task for the courts to make. It requires persistence and determination in
separating polluted confessions from untainted ones. We have a sworn duty to be
vigilant and protective of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Same; Murder; Aggravating Circumstances; Treachery; The crime committed is
murder where the victim was stabbed while he was simply standing on the
pavement with his girlfriend waiting for a ride, blissfully oblivious of the accuseds
criminal design.With all the evidence tightly ringed around accused-appellant, the
question that next presents itself is whether the trial court correctly denominated
the crime as murder qualified by treachery. Doubtless, the crime committed is one
of murder considering that the victim was stabbed while he was simply standing on
the pavement with his girlfriend waiting for a ride, blissfully oblivious of the
accuseds criminal design. The suddenness of the assault on an unsuspecting
victim, without the slightest provocation from him who had no opportunity to parry
the attack, certainly qualifies the killing to murder.
APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City, Br. 49.

Robert Y. Peneyra for accused-appellant.
BELLOSILLO, J.: [People vs. Endino, 352 SCRA 307(2001)]
G.R. No. 203302.April 11, 2013.*

MAYOR EMMANUEL L. MALIKSI, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and
HOMER T. SAQUILAYAN, respondents.
Election Law; Automated Election System; Electronic Documents; The picture
images of the ballots are electronic documents that are regarded as the equivalents
of the original official ballots themselves.The picture images of the ballots are
electronic documents that are regarded as the equivalents of the original official
ballots themselves. In Vinzons-Chato v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal,
689 SCRA 107 (2013), the Court held that the picture images of the ballots, as
scanned and recorded by the PCOS, are likewise official ballots that faithfully
capture in electronic form the votes cast by the voter, as defined by Section 2(3) of
R.A. No. 9369. As such, the printouts thereof are the functional equivalent of the
paper ballots filled out by the voters and, thus, may be used for purposes of revision
of votes in an electoral protest. That the two documentsthe official ballot and its
picture imageare considered original documents simply means that both of
them are given equal probative weight. In short, when either is presented as
evidence, one is not considered as weightier than the other.
Same; Same; Same; Despite the equal probative weight accorded to the official
ballots and the printouts of their picture images, the rules for the revision of ballots
adopted for their respective proceedings still consider the official ballots to be the
primary or best evidence of the voters will.But this juridical reality does not
authorize the courts, the COMELEC, and the Electoral Tribunals to quickly and
unilaterally resort to the printouts of the picture images of the ballots in the
proceedings had before them without notice to the parties. Despite the equal
probative weight accorded to the official ballots and the printouts of their picture
images, the rules for the revision of ballots adopted for their respective proceedings
still consider the official ballots to be the primary or best evidence of the voters
will. In that regard, the picture images of the ballots are to be
_______________
* EN BANC.
273
VOL. 696, APRIL 11, 2013

273
Maliksi vs. Commission on Elections
used only when it is first shown that the official ballots are lost or their integrity has
been compromised.
Same; Due Process; Due process of law does not only require notice of the
decryption, printing, and recount proceedings to the parties, but also demands an
opportunity to be present at such proceedings or to be represented therein.Due
process of law does not only require notice of the decryption, printing, and recount
proceedings to the parties, but also demands an opportunity to be present at such
proceedings or to be represented therein. Maliksi correctly contends that the orders
of the First Division simply required Saquilayan to post and augment his cash
deposit. The orders did not state the time, date, and venue of the decryption and
recount proceedings. Clearly, the First Division had no intention of giving the parties
the opportunity to witness its proceedings.
Carpio, J., Dissenting Opinion:
Election Law; Automated Election System; View that Section 3, Rule 16 does not
require any allegation of tampering before the printing of ballot images may be
requested by the parties.Section 6, Rule 15 should be read together with Rule 16
of Resolution No. 8804, as amended by Resolution No. 9164, particularly Section 3,
which provides: Section 3. Printing of Ballot Images.In case the parties deem it
necessary, they may file a motion to be approved by the Division of the Commission
requesting for the printing of ballot images in addition to those mentioned in the
second paragraph of item (e). Parties concerned shall provide the necessary
materials in the printing of images such as but not limited to copying papers, toners
and printers. Parties may also secure, upon prior approval by the Division of the
Commission, a soft copy of the ballot images contained in a secured/hashed disc on
the condition that the ballot images be first printed, at the expense of the
requesting party, and that the printed copies be signed by the parties respective
revisors or representatives and by an ERSD IT-capable representative and deposited
with the Commission. The Over-all chairman shall coordinate with the Director IV,
Election Records and Statistics Department (ERSD), for the printing of images. Said
director shall in turn designate a personnel who will be responsible in the printing of
ballot images. (Emphasis supplied) Section 3, Rule 16 does not require any
allegation of tampering before the printing of
274
274
ballot images may be requested by the parties. It does not require prior
determination by the Revision/Recount Committee that the integrity of the ballots
and the ballot boxes was not preserved. Under Section 3, Rule 16, the request may
be made when the parties deem the printing of the ballot images necessary. To
repeat, the parties can request for the printing of the ballot images in case the
parties deem it necessary. This is a ground separate from that in Section 6(e),
which refers to a determination of the integrity of the ballots by the
Revision/Recount Committee. Section 3, Rule 16 provides that [i]n case the parties
deem it necessary, they may file a motion to be approved by the Division of the
Commission requesting for the printing of ballot images in addition to those
mentioned in the second paragraph of item (e).
Same; Due Process; View that there is no denial of due process where there is
opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings.I emphasize
that there is no denial of due process where there is opportunity to be heard, either
through oral arguments or pleadings. Further, the fact that a party was heard on his
motion for reconsideration negates any violation of the right to due process.
Maliksis motion for reconsideration was directed against the entire resolution of the
First Division, including the recount proceedings which he claimed to have violated
his right to due process.
Same; Automated Election System; Over-Voting; Double-Shading; Words and
Phrases; View that this case is not a case of over-voting under Guideline No. 5. In
over-voting under Guideline No. 5, one person, that is, the voter himself, votes for
two or more persons for one elective position. When the ballot is fed to the Precinct
Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machine, the machine reads that two or more candidates
for the same position had been shaded. The digital image will record two spaces
shaded for one position. On the other hand, in double-shading, the voter shades the
space for one candidate but another person, after the ballot is fed to the Precinct
Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machine, surreptitiously shades another space for
another candidate for the same position. In double-shading, the digital image shows
only one shaded space for a candidate while the ballot shows two shaded spaces.
This case is not a case of over-voting under Guideline No. 5. In over-voting under
Guideline No.
275
VOL. 696, APRIL 11, 2013

275
5, one person, that is, the voter himself, votes for two or more persons for one
elective position. When the ballot is fed to the PCOS machine, the machine reads
that two or more candidates for the same position had been shaded. The digital
image will record two spaces shaded for one position. On the other hand, in doubleshading, the voter shades the space for one candidate but another person, after the
ballot is fed to the PCOS machine, surreptitiously shades another space for another
candidate for the same position. In double-shading, the digital image shows only
one shaded space for a candidate while the ballot shows two shaded spaces. In the
present case, there was actually a double-shading (although it was inaccurately
referred to as over-voting in the COMELEC First Divisions Decision) which was done
by person or persons other than the voter. When the ballot was fed to the PCOS
machine, the machine read only one vote for one candidate for one position. After
the double-shading, there were already two votes for two candidates for the same
position, but the digital image still contains only one shaded space. Here, the
double-shading happened after the ballots were fed to and read by the PCOS
machines because the digital images show only one shaded space while the ballots
show two shaded spaces. Double-shading is a post-election operation. The doubleshading covered 8,387 ballots, exclusively affecting the position of Mayor and
specifically affecting the ballots of Saquilayan and the 8,387 affected ballots
surprisingly all came from 53 clustered precincts specifically pinpointed by Maliksi
as his pilot precincts.
Perez, J., Concurring Opinion:
Election Law; Automated Election System; Over-Voting; View that the electoral
contest is all about over-voting.The electoral contest is all about over-voting.
Simply, it means that in the contested ballots both the slots separately for petitioner
Maliksi and respondent Saquilayan who vied for the position of Mayor of Imus,
Cavite, were shaded. The guideline in the appreciation of ballots with over-voting is
embodied in Guideline No. 5 used by the COMELEC. Thus: 5. On over-voting. It has
been the position of the Commission that over-voting in a certain position will make
the vote cast for that position STRAY but will not invalidate the entire ballot, so IN
CASE OF OVER-VOTING FOR THE CONTESTED POSITION, SUCH VOTE SHALL BE
CONSIDERED STRAY AND WILL NOT BE CREDITED TO ANY OF THE CONTENDING
PARTIES.
275
VOL. 696, APRIL 11, 2013

275
Same; Same; View that in case of over-voting which is the case at hand, Guideline
No. 5 outrightly provides the consequence that the vote shall be considered stray
and will not be credited to any of the contending parties.Clearly, in case of a
ballot claimed to have been shaded by two or more persons, there is an inquiry to
determine whether or not the ballot was shaded by person/s, other than the voter.
The Guideline implies a presumption in favor of shading by the voter whose ballot
should be rejected only if there is any circumstance showing shading by
somebody else. On the contrary, in case of over-voting which is the case at hand,
Guideline No. 5 outrightly provides the consequence that the vote shall be
considered stray and will not be credited to any of the contending parties. The
reason behind the significant variance in the consequences of the two kinds of
shading can be debated endlessly. The obviousness of the difference outlined by the
COMELEC, which is the sole judge of an election contest, forecloses such a debate.
What the obviousness brings about, as it is my intention, is the grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the COMELEC. The COMELEC disobeyed its own rule that
over-voting results in a stray vote. Relying on allegations of ballot and ballot box
tampering, which allegations are without proof from the proponent, the COMELEC
nonetheless favors the allegations through its own inspection of the ballot boxes to
support its conclusion that it is apparent that the integrity of the ballots had been
compromised. That was done on the first review of the appealed decision. On
second review, the COMELEC resorted to the observation of unprecedented
number of double-votes which left it with no other option but to dispense with the
physical ballots and resort to their digital image.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of a decision of the Supreme Court.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
Mary Charlene V. Hernandez for petitioner.
Charles Perfecto A. Mercado for private respondent.
277
VOL. 696, APRIL 11, 2013

277
RESOLUTION
BERSAMIN,J.: [Maliksi vs. Commission on Elections, 696 SCRA 272(2013)]
G.R. No. 200877.November 12, 2014.*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CHARVE JOHN LAGAHIT, accusedappellant.

Constitutional Law; Right to Presumption of Innocence; The right of the accused to
be presumed innocent until proven guilty is guaranteed under Section 14(2), Article
III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.The right of the accused to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty is guaranteed under Section 14(2), Article III
(Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. This fundamental right of the
accused is also embodied under Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, which
specifically states that in a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal,
unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces
absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs; Elements of.
Time and again, this Court held that in every prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, like marijuana, the following essential elements must be duly
established: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.
Similarly, it is essential that the transaction or sale be proved to have actually taken
place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti, that is,
the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.
Same; Same; Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs; Elements of.On the other
hand, to successfully prosecute a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the
following elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item
or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not
authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
268
268
People vs. Lagahit
Same; Same; Chain of Custody Rule; Apart from showing that the elements of
possession or sale are present, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and
sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise
be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty
verdict.The prohibited drug is an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crimes of
illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs; proof of its identity,
existence, and presentation in court is crucial. A conviction cannot be sustained if
there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. The identity of the prohibited
drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the
elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that the substance illegally
possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court as
exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that
needed to sustain a guilty verdict. The chain of custody requirement performs this
function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the
evidence are removed.
Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Chain of Custody means the duly
recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each
stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.Section 1(b) of Dangerous
Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, that implements the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, defines chain of custody as follows: Chain of
Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized
drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the
forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such
record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and
signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date
and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping
and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
Same; Same; Same; The procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated,
seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, among others, is provided under
Section 21(a), paragraph 1, Article
269
VOL. 740, NOVEMBER 12, 2014
269
People vs. Lagahit
II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165.The procedure for the custody and disposition of
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, among others, is provided
under Section 21(a), paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, thus: (a) The
apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative
from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official
who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof. (Emphasis supplied) The specific procedures relating to the seizure and
custody of drugs have been laid down under the Implementing Rules and
Regulations for Republic Act No. 9165, particularly Section 21(a), Article II thereof,
and it is the prosecutions burden to adduce evidence that these procedures have
been complied with in proving the elements of the offense.
Same; Same; Same; Buy-Bust Operations; While the Supreme Court (SC) recognizes
that noncompliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21 of Republic Act (RA) No.
9165 is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground therefor, for and as long as
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending team.While this Court recognizes that noncompliance by the
buy-bust team with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal as long as there
is a justifiable ground therefor, for and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team, these
conditions, however, were not met in the present case. Despite of all the aforesaid
major lapses, the prosecution neither offered any explanation why the procedure
was not followed nor mentioned any justifiable ground for failing to observe the
rule. In People v. Ancheta, 672 SCRA 604 (2012), this Court pronounced that when
there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards set forth in Republic Act No.
9165, serious uncertainty is generated as to the identity of the seized items that the
prosecution presented in evidence. Such doubt cannot be remedied by merely
invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties for a
gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safe270
270
People vs. Lagahit
guards effectively produces an irregularity in the performance of official duties.

Same; Same; Same; It is truly distressing how courts are constrained to make
acquittals, dismissals, or reversals by reason of the inadvertent failure of the
arresting officers and the prosecution to establish compliance or justify
noncompliance with a statutory procedure.It is truly distressing how courts are
constrained to make acquittals, dismissals, or reversals by reason of the inadvertent
failure of the arresting officers and the prosecution to establish compliance or justify
noncompliance with a statutory procedure. It is even more troubling when those
cases involve apparently known or long-suspected drug pushers. Congress was
clear in its declaration on the eradication of the drug menace plaguing our country.
Yet, also firm and stringent is its mandate to observe the legal safeguards provided
for under Republic Act No. 9165. This is the reason why this Court has emphasized
countless times that courts must remain vigilant in their disposition of cases related
to dangerous drugs. Also, this Court has already called on the police, the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency, and the prosecution to reinforce and review the conduct
of buy-bust operations and the presentation of evidence.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.
Public Attorneys Office for accused-appellant.
PEREZ,J.: [People vs. Lagahit, 740 SCRA 267(2014)]
G.R. No. 208749.November 26, 2014.*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANECITO ESTIBAL y CALUNGSAG,

accused-appellant.
Criminal Law; Rape; Anti-Rape Law; Since Republic Act (RA) No. 8353, or the AntiRape Law, took effect in 1997, rape is no longer considered a crime against chastity.
Having been reclassified as a crime against persons, it is no longer considered a
private crime, or one which cannot be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by
the aggrieved party. Thus, pardon by the offended party of the offender will not
extinguish his criminal liability.It has, however, been held that even if it is
construed as a pardon, AAAs desistance is not by itself a ground to dismiss the
complaint for rape against the accused-appellant once the complaint has been
instituted in court. In People v. Bonaagua, 650 SCRA 620 (2011), the accused tried
to invoke the affidavit of desistance executed by the minor victims mother stating
that they would no longer pursue the rape cases against him. But the high court
pointed out that since R.A. No. 8353, or the Anti-Rape Law, took effect in 1997, rape
is no longer considered a crime against chastity. Having been reclassified as a crime
against persons, it is no longer considered a private crime, or one which cannot be
prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the aggrieved party. Thus, pardon by
the offended party of the offender will not extinguish his criminal liability. As a rule,
a recantation or an affidavit of desistance is viewed with suspicion and reservation.
Jurisprudence has invariably regarded such affidavit as exceedingly unreliable,
because it can easily be secured from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through
intimidation or for monetary consideration. Moreover, there is always the probability
that it would later on be repudiated, and criminal prosecution would thus be
interminable.
Same; Same; A charge of rape by its very nature often must be resolved by giving
primordial consideration to the credibility of the victims testimony.A charge of
rape by its very nature often must be resolved by giving primordial consideration to
the credibility of the victims testimony. Because conviction may rest solely thereon,
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
216
216

People vs. Estibal
the victims testimony must be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with
human nature and the normal course of things, it must be scrutinized with utmost
caution, and unavoidably, the victims credibility must be put on trial as well. But if
for some reason the complainant fails or refuses to testify, as in this case, then the
court must consider the adequacy of the circumstantial evidence established by the
prosecution.
Same; Same; Guiding Principles in the Prosecution of Rape.The Court is called
upon to review the verdict of conviction below, keeping in mind the following
principles as guidance: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility, while
the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, albeit
innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that, in the nature of things, only two persons
are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with extreme care; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must
succeed or fail on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to derive strength from the
weakness of the evidence for the defense.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Res Gestae; The Supreme Court (SC) enumerated three (3)
essential requisites for the admissibility of a given statement as part of res gestae.
The Court enumerated three essential requisites for the admissibility of a given
statement as part of res gestae, to wit: All that is required for the admissibility of a
given statement as part of res gestae, is that it be made under the influence of a
startling event witnessed by the person who made the declaration before he had
time to think and make up a story, or to concoct or contrive a falsehood, or to
fabricate an account, and without any undue influence in obtaining it, aside from
referring to the event in question or its immediate attending circum[s]tances.
(Citations omitted) There are then three essential requisites to admit evidence as
part of the res gestae, namely: (1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a
startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had the
time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and (3) that the statements must concern
the occurrence in question and its immediate attending circumstances.
Same; Same; Same; Res gestae speaks of a quick continuum of related happenings,
starting with the occurrence of a startling event which triggered it and including any
spontaneous declaration made
217

217
People vs. Estibal

by a witness, participant or spectator relative to the said occurrence.Res gestae
speaks of a quick continuum of related happenings, starting with the occurrence of
a startling event which triggered it and including any spontaneous declaration made
by a witness, participant or spectator relative to the said occurrence. The cases this
Court has cited invariably reiterate that the statement must be an unreflected
reaction of the declarant, undesigned and free of deliberation. In other words, the
declarant is spontaneously moved merely to express his instinctive reaction
concerning the startling occurrence, and not to pursue a purpose or design already
formed in his mind. In People v. Sanchez, 213 SCRA 70 (1992), the Court belabored
to explain that startling events speak for themselves, giving out their fullest
meaning through the unprompted language of the participants.
Same; Same; Same; Hearsay Evidence Rule; Hearsay testimony is devoid of
probative value, and unless it is part of res gestae, the appealed decision runs
contrary to the well-settled rule against admitting hearsay evidence, aptly
described as evidence not of what the witness knows himself but of what he has
heard from others.Hearsay testimony is devoid of probative value, and unless it
is part of res gestae, the appealed decision runs contrary to the well-settled rule
against admitting hearsay evidence, aptly described as evidence not of what the
witness knows himself but of what he has heard from others. The hearsay rule puts
in issue the trustworthiness and reliability of hearsay evidence, since the statement
testified to was not given under oath or solemn affirmation, and more compellingly,
the declarant was not subjected to cross-examination by the opposing party to test
his perception, memory, veracity and articulateness, on whose reliability the entire
worth of the out-of-court statement depends. It is an immemorial rule that a witness
can testify only as to his own personal perception or knowledge of the actual facts
or events. His testimony cannot be proof as to the truth of what he learned or heard
from others. But equally important, Section 14(2) of the Bill of Rights guarantees
that [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall x x x enjoy the right x x x to
meet the witnesses face to face x x x. By allowing the accused to test the
perception, memory, and veracity of the witness, the trial court is able to weigh the
trustworthiness and reliability of his testimony. There is no gainsaying that the right
to confront a witness applies with
218
218
People vs. Estibal
particular urgency in criminal proceedings, for at stake is a mans personal liberty,

universally cherished among all human rights.
Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Presumption of Innocence; It is well-settled,
to the point of being elementary, that when inculpatory facts are susceptible to two
(2) or more interpretations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the
accused, the evidence does not fulfill or hurdle the test of moral certainty required
for conviction.It is well-settled, to the point of being elementary, that when
inculpatory facts are susceptible to two or more interpretations, one of which is
consistent with the innocence of the accused, the evidence does not fulfill or hurdle
the test of moral certainty required for conviction. A forced application of the res
gestae exception below results if the Court says that AAAs incriminatory
statements were spontaneous and thus part of a startling occurrence. It produces
an outright denial of the right of the accused-appellant to be presumed innocent
unless proven guilty, not to mention that he was also denied his right to confront
the complainant.
Prosecution of Offenses; It needs no elaboration that in criminal litigation, the
evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw
strength from the weakness of the defense.It needs no elaboration that in criminal
litigation, the evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and
cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense. [T]he burden of proof
rests on the [S]tate. The accused, if he so chooses, need not present evidence. He
merely has to raise a reasonable doubt and whittle away from the case of the
prosecution. The constitutional presumption of innocence demands no less, even
as it also demands no less than a moral certainty of his guilt.
AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Public Attorneys Office for accused-appellant.
219

219
People vs. Estibal
REYES,J.: [People vs. Estibal, 743 SCRA 215(2014)]
G.R. No. 200065. September 24, 2014.*
CAPITAL SHOES FACTORY, LTD., petitioner, vs. TRAVELLER KIDS, INC., respondent.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Documentary Evidence; Duplicate Originals; When carbon
sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of writing paper so that the writing
of a contract upon the outside sheet, including the signature of the party to be
charged thereby, produces a facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature
being thus reproduced by the same stroke of pen which made the surface or
exposed impression, all of the sheets so written on are regarded as duplicate
originals and either of them may be introduced in evidence as such without
accounting for the non-production of the others.In Trans-Pacific Industrial Supplies
v. The Court of Appeals and Associated Bank, 235 SCRA 494 (1994), it was stressed
that duplicate originals were admissible as evidence. Pertinent portions
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
490
490
Capital Shoes Factory, Ltd. vs. Traveller Kids, Inc.
of the said decision read: Respondent court is of the view that the above provision
must be construed to mean the original copy of the document evidencing the credit
and not its duplicate, thus: . . . [W]hen the law speaks of the delivery of the private
document evidencing a credit, it must be construed as referring to the original. In
this case, appellees (Trans-Pacific) presented, not the originals but the duplicates of
the three promissory notes. (Rollo, p. 42.) The above pronouncement of respondent
court is manifestly groundless. It is undisputed that the documents presented were
duplicate originals and are therefore admissible as evidence. Further, it must be
noted that respondent bank itself did not bother to challenge the authenticity of the
duplicate copies submitted by petitioner. In People v. Tan, 105 Phil. 1242 (1959), we
said: When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of writing paper
so that the writing of a contract upon the outside sheet, including the signature of
the party to be charged thereby, produces a facsimile upon the sheets beneath,
such signature being thus reproduced by the same stroke of pen which made the
surface or exposed impression, all of the sheets so written on are regarded as
duplicate originals and either of them may be introduced in evidence as such

without accounting for the non-production of the others.
Appeals.
Jimenez, Gonzales, Bello, Valdez, Caluya & Fernandez for petitioner.
Bohol, Bohol II, Jimenez Law Offices for respondent.
MENDOZA, J.: [Capital Shoes Factory, Ltd. vs. Traveller Kids, Inc., 736 SCRA
489(2014)]
G.R. No. 178630.November 27, 2012.*

ROSA F. MERCADO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION,
respondent.
Attorney-Client Relationships; Withdrawal of Counsel; A client has the absolute right
to relieve his counsel at any time with or without cause. In contrast, the counsel, on
his own, cannot terminate their attorney-client relation except for sufficient cause as
determined by the court.In our jurisdiction, a client has the absolute right to
relieve his counsel at any time with or without cause. In contrast, the counsel, on
his own, cannot terminate their attorney-client relation except for sufficient cause as
determined by the court. These basic principles form the bedrock of Section 26 of
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which prescribes the rules for the withdrawal of
counsel from a case.
Same; Same; When a counsel withdraws from a case with the written consent of the
client, the former no longer needs to provide reasons to justify his retirement from a
case; On the other hand, when the withdrawal is made without the consent of the
client, the counsel, in that event, must actually provide valid reasons to justify the
withdrawal.Under Section 26 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, the withdrawal of a
counsel from a case could either be with the written conformity of the client or
without, thus: SEC. 26. Change of attorneys.An attorney may retire at any time
from any action or special proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in
court. He may also retire at any time from an action or special proceeding, without
the consent of his client, should the court, on notice to the client and attorney, and
on hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to retire. In case of substitution,
the name of the attorney newly employed shall be entered on the docket of the
court in place of the former one, and written notice of the change shall be given to
the adverse party. (Emphasis supplied) Pursuant to the quoted section, when a
counsel withdraws from a case with the written consent of the client, the former no
longer needs to provide reasons to justify his retirement
_______________
* EN BANC.
447

447
Mercado vs. Commission on Higher Education
from a case. The act of withdrawal is accomplished by merely filing the same with
the court. On the other hand, the rule is structured differently when the withdrawal
is made without the consent of the client. The counsel, in that event, must actually
provide valid reasons to justify the withdrawal. Section 26 of Rule 138 is categorical
that when the withdrawal was made without the consent of the client, the court
must first determine, in a hearing upon notice to the client, whether the counsel
may be allowed to retire.
Same; Same; As a rule, the withdrawal of a counsel from a case made with the
written conformity of the client takes effect once the same is filed with the
court.As a rule, the withdrawal of a counsel from a case made with the written
conformity of the client takes effect once the same is filed with the court. The
leading case of Arambulo v. Court of Appeals, 226 SCRA 589 (1993), laid out the
rule that, in general, such kind of a withdrawal does not require any further action
or approval from the court in order to be effective. In contrast, the norm with
respect to withdrawals of counsels without the written conformity of the client is
that they only take effect after their approval by the court.
Same; Same; The rule that the withdrawal of a counsel with the written conformity
of the client is immediately effective once filed in court, however, is not absolute.
When the counsels impending withdrawal with the written conformity of the client
would leave the latter with no legal representation in the case, it is an accepted
practice for courts to order the deferment of the effectivity of such withdrawal until
such time that it becomes certain that service of court processes and other papers
to the party-client would not thereby be compromised.The rule that the
withdrawal of a counsel with the written conformity of the client is immediately
effective once filed in court, however, is not absolute. When the counsels
impending withdrawal with the written conformity of the client would leave the
latter with no legal representation in the case, it is an accepted practice for courts
to order the deferment of the effectivity of such withdrawal until such time that it
becomes certain that service of court processes and other papers to the party-client
would not thereby be compromisedeither by the due substitution of the
withdrawing counsel in the case or by the express assurance of the party-client that
he now undertakes to himself receive serviceable processes and other papers.
Adoption by courts of such a practice in that particular
448
448
context, while neither mandatory nor sanctioned by a specific provision of the Rules
of Court, is nevertheless justified as part of their inherent power to see to it that the
potency of judicial processes and judgment are preserved.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Handwriting Experts; It is doctrined that opinions of
handwriting experts, like signature analyses of the PNP, are not conclusive upon
courts or tribunals on the issue of authenticity of signatures.It is doctrined that
opinions of handwriting experts, like signature analyses of the PNP, are not
conclusive upon courts or tribunals on the issue of authenticity of signatures. The
seminal case of Gamido v. Court of Appeals, 251 SCRA 101 (1995), reminds Us that
the authenticity or forgery of signatures is not a highly technical issue in the same
sense that questions concerning, e.g., quantum physics or topology or molecular
biology, would constitute matters of a highly technical nature, and thus [t]he
opinion of a handwriting expert on the genuineness of a questioned signature is
certainly much less compelling x x x than an opinion rendered by a specialist on a
highly technical issue. Hence, in resolving the question of whether or not forgery
exists, courts or tribunals are neither limited to, nor bound by, the opinions of
handwriting experts. Far from it, courts or tribunals may even disregard such
opinions entirely in favor of either their own independent examination of the
contested handwritings or on the basis of any other relevant, if not more direct,
evidence of the character of the questioned signatures.
Same; Same; Same; The weight that may be given to opinions of handwriting
experts varies on a case-to-case basis and largely depends on the quality of the
opinion itself as well as the availability of other evidence directly proving the forgery
or authenticity of the questioned signatures.Verily, the weight that may be given
to opinions of handwriting experts varies on a case-to-case basis and largely
depends on the quality of the opinion itself as well as the availability of other
evidence directly proving the forgery or authenticity of the questioned signatures.
Before such opinions may be accepted and given probative value, it is indispensable
that the integrity and soundness of the procedures undertaken by the expert in
arriving at his conclusion, as well as the qualifications of the expert himself, must
first be established satisfactorily. However, as such opinions are essentially based
on mere inference, they should always be ac449

449
corded less significance when lined up against direct statements of witnesses as to

matters within their personal observation.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a resolution of the Court of Appeals.
Adolfo P. Runas for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondent.
PEREZ,J.: [Mercado vs. Commission on Higher Education, 686 SCRA 446(2012)]

Evidence Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marturillas vs.

People, 487 SCRA 273(2006)]

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 487, APRIL 18, 2006

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 487, APRIL 18, 2006

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Amanquiton vs. People, 596 SCRA 366(2009)

Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Tiu, 657 SCRA 86(2011)

People vs. Wagas, 705 SCRA 17(2013)]

G.R. No. 209386.December 8, 2014.*

MEL CARPIZO CANDELARIA, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

PERLAS-BERNABE,J.: [Candelaria vs. People, 744 SCRA 178(2014)]

G.R. No. 164457.April 11, 2012.*

People vs. Endino

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

G.R. No. 203302.April 11, 2013.*

VOL. 696, APRIL 11, 2013

VOL. 696, APRIL 11, 2013

VOL. 696, APRIL 11, 2013

VOL. 696, APRIL 11, 2013

BERSAMIN,J.: [Maliksi vs. Commission on Elections, 696 SCRA 272(2013)]

G.R. No. 200877.November 12, 2014.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CHARVE JOHN LAGAHIT, accusedappellant.

People vs. Lagahit

VOL. 740, NOVEMBER 12, 2014

People vs. Lagahit

guards effectively produces an irregularity in the performance of official duties.

PEREZ,J.: [People vs. Lagahit, 740 SCRA 267(2014)]

G.R. No. 208749.November 26, 2014.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANECITO ESTIBAL y CALUNGSAG,

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 743, NOVEMBER 26, 2014

People vs. Estibal

particular urgency in criminal proceedings, for at stake is a mans personal liberty,

VOL. 743, NOVEMBER 26, 2014

G.R. No. 200065. September 24, 2014.*

duplicate originals and either of them may be introduced in evidence as such

G.R. No. 178630.November 27, 2012.*

VOL. 686, NOVEMBER 27, 2012

VOL. 686, NOVEMBER 27, 2012

corded less significance when lined up against direct statements of witnesses as to

You might also like